One minute with Daniel Feingold, founder of Stratax.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
After years dealing with complex non-domiciled tax planning and investigations; it’s advising UK born and bred clients, who want to leave the UK because of the recent IHT changes and other looming tax rises. Getting out of the UK tax net and selecting the right favourable tax jurisdiction, is actually quite challenging!
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
The way that the tax advisory world has been overwhelmed by so many ‘scheme sellers’ and ‘promoters’ (often lawyers and accountants), who convince their clients they are ‘tax experts’ and have a ‘magic tax wand.’ In reality, they have walked away with millions for themselves, leaving clients with years of pointless tax litigation and huge costs, that often ends in financial ruin.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
A very recent tax law change has, in my view, created a punishment for those leaving the UK. FA 2025 s 44(3) which significantly changes the deemed domicile rule to the long term residence rule for those leaving the UK. Extending the length of time they are subject to UK inheritance tax on their worldwide assets. This changes that time period from three UK tax years to ten UK tax years. That equates to a ten UK tax year ‘tail’ for those leaving; and is in my view, it is extremely punitive and in practice (if the individual, no longer has UK assets) unenforceable! It appears to have received no coverage in the national press, because all the focus was on the ending of the non-domicile regime.
When I explain this to clients, they think it can’t be that severe, or that I must be mistaken. It is an extreme and very unfair measure that should be repealed.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
Kevin McCabe v HMRC [2024] UKUT 280 (TCC) is a tax residence case where a huge amount of capital gains was at stake on the sale of shares in a very successful UK property company.
The taxpayer claimed to have left the UK and taken up tax residence in Belgium. He was chairman of a Sheffield football club, retained his UK home (where his wife continued to reside) and dealt with lots of business issues and meetings for his UK property company.
The tax year in question was before the statutory residence test, was introduced in 2013. Therefore, the common law test applied.
The court reviewed all the leading UK cases on tax residence and what the tax payer believed was his ‘ace’, the ‘tie-breaker clause’ in the UK/Belgium double tax treaty. They found that he had never shed UK tax residence and acquired Belgian tax residence because his centre of vital interests remained in the UK. As a result, the tie-breaker clause was not relevant to his tax position.
Many tax advisers have always thought the tie-breaker clause saves clients who have lots of continuing UK connections or spent too much time here. This case is increasingly relevant to those who simply misconceive or who have had poor advice on achieving UK non-residence. I have to bring this up with clients daily.
You may not know this about me but…
Since the start of my legal career at the Bar/City law firms, I have never been an early riser. I can burn the midnight oil, but a 7am breakfast meeting? Forget it! Except that is (as my wife always points out), if I am going on an all day hike in the Lake or Peak district. I’m magically up and ready at 7am, for an eight hour epic hike...
One minute with Daniel Feingold, founder of Stratax.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
After years dealing with complex non-domiciled tax planning and investigations; it’s advising UK born and bred clients, who want to leave the UK because of the recent IHT changes and other looming tax rises. Getting out of the UK tax net and selecting the right favourable tax jurisdiction, is actually quite challenging!
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
The way that the tax advisory world has been overwhelmed by so many ‘scheme sellers’ and ‘promoters’ (often lawyers and accountants), who convince their clients they are ‘tax experts’ and have a ‘magic tax wand.’ In reality, they have walked away with millions for themselves, leaving clients with years of pointless tax litigation and huge costs, that often ends in financial ruin.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
A very recent tax law change has, in my view, created a punishment for those leaving the UK. FA 2025 s 44(3) which significantly changes the deemed domicile rule to the long term residence rule for those leaving the UK. Extending the length of time they are subject to UK inheritance tax on their worldwide assets. This changes that time period from three UK tax years to ten UK tax years. That equates to a ten UK tax year ‘tail’ for those leaving; and is in my view, it is extremely punitive and in practice (if the individual, no longer has UK assets) unenforceable! It appears to have received no coverage in the national press, because all the focus was on the ending of the non-domicile regime.
When I explain this to clients, they think it can’t be that severe, or that I must be mistaken. It is an extreme and very unfair measure that should be repealed.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
Kevin McCabe v HMRC [2024] UKUT 280 (TCC) is a tax residence case where a huge amount of capital gains was at stake on the sale of shares in a very successful UK property company.
The taxpayer claimed to have left the UK and taken up tax residence in Belgium. He was chairman of a Sheffield football club, retained his UK home (where his wife continued to reside) and dealt with lots of business issues and meetings for his UK property company.
The tax year in question was before the statutory residence test, was introduced in 2013. Therefore, the common law test applied.
The court reviewed all the leading UK cases on tax residence and what the tax payer believed was his ‘ace’, the ‘tie-breaker clause’ in the UK/Belgium double tax treaty. They found that he had never shed UK tax residence and acquired Belgian tax residence because his centre of vital interests remained in the UK. As a result, the tie-breaker clause was not relevant to his tax position.
Many tax advisers have always thought the tie-breaker clause saves clients who have lots of continuing UK connections or spent too much time here. This case is increasingly relevant to those who simply misconceive or who have had poor advice on achieving UK non-residence. I have to bring this up with clients daily.
You may not know this about me but…
Since the start of my legal career at the Bar/City law firms, I have never been an early riser. I can burn the midnight oil, but a 7am breakfast meeting? Forget it! Except that is (as my wife always points out), if I am going on an all day hike in the Lake or Peak district. I’m magically up and ready at 7am, for an eight hour epic hike...
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=c9a7a0cc_1)
